Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc. (2001)
green
· 29 citation events
across 17 courts.
Showing the 23 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200120132026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
SensorRx, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company (2020)
A court should not exercise declaratory judgment jurisdiction when the declaratory relief sought is “being used merely as a procedural device for a declaratory judgment plaintiff to select the choice of forum.” Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 829 (E.D.
green
Eli Lilly and Company v. SensorRx (2020)
A court should not exercise declaratory judgment jurisdiction when the declaratory relief sought is “being used merely as a procedural device for a declaratory judgment plaintiff to select the choice of forum.” Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 829 (E.D.
green
Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Gagnon (2005)
Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 560 F.2d 1325 , 1336 (7th Cir.1977) (holding that defendant failed to make out the affir *1213 mative defense of trademark misuse); Dunn Computer Corp., 133 F.Supp.2d at 830 (“Trademark misuse is not an independent cause of action, but is, instead only an affirmative defense to a trademark infringement claim.”)- Therefore, Count IV will be dismissed because Defendants failed to state a cognizable unfair competition claim.
“Trademark misuse is not an independent cause of action, but is, instead only an affirmative defense to a trademark infringement claim.”
Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 831 (E.D.
Va. 2002) (quoting Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 829 (E.D.
green
RHH LLC v. INNISFREE HOTELS INC (2021)
Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937), it “allow[s] federal courts to issue declaratory judgments only in cases that . . . present a valid basis for subject[-]matter jurisdiction, i.e., diversity or federal question jurisdiction,” Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 826 (E.D.
green
RHH LLC v. INNISFREE HOTELS, INC. (2021)
Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937), it “allow[s] federal courts to issue declaratory judgments only in cases that . . . present a valid basis for subject[-]matter jurisdiction, i.e., diversity or federal question jurisdiction,” Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 826 (E.D.
green
WHAT A SMOKE, LLC v. DURACELL US OPERATIONS, INC. (2020)
Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 831 (E.D.
green
Max Rack, Inc. v. Core Health & Fitness, LLC (2019)
The court declines to announce or create an independent cause of action for trademark misuse and finds that Defendant’s claim is more appropriately cast as a potential affirmative defense.”); Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 830 (E.D.
“Trademark misuse is not an independent cause of action, but is, instead, only an affirmative defense to trademark infringement.”
green
Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp. (2018)
Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) ; Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc. , 133 F.Supp.2d 823 , 830 (E.D.
"Trademark misuse is not an independent cause of action, but is, instead, only an affirmative defense to a trademark infringement claim."
green
Hyatt v. United States Patent & Trademark Office (2015)
Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 826 (E.D.Va.2001).
green
Perfect Pearl Co. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc. (2012)
Corp., 158 F.Supp.2d 589, 592 (E.D.Pa.2001); Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 831 (E.D.Va.2001); Juno Online Services, L.P. v. Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F.Supp. 684, 685-87 (N.D.Ill. 1997).
green
Daniel Group v. Service Performance Group, Inc. (2010)
Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 832 (E.D.Va.2001) ("[A] party that uses a trademark would have priority over a nonuser who files an intent-to-use application if the party's use predated the nonuser's filing of the application.").
green
Gilmore v. Bostic (2009)
Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 829-30 (E.D.Va.2001) (quoting Aetna Cas. & Sur.
green
Gaudreau v. American Promotional Events, Inc. (2007)
Farm Bureau Fed’n, 876 F.2d 599, 601 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Section 38 makes sense when ‘procure’ is taken to mean ‘obtain’ and little sense when taken to mean ‘apply for.’ ”); Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1395-96 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that a claim under Section 38 accrued the day the trademark registration was procured in the USTPO); Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 831-32 (E.D.Va.2001) (holding that procurement means obtaining …
green
Firestone v. Wiley (2007)
Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 826 (E.D.Va.2001).
green
DC Injury Solutions LLC v. Morris Bart LLC (2022)
See Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 823, 829-30 (E.D.
citing Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ind-Com Elec. Co., 139 F.3d 419, 422 (4th Cir. 1998); Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcide Corp., 684 F. Supp. 1155, 1160 (W.D.N.Y. 1987); BASF Corp. v. Symington, 50 F.3d 555, 557 (8th Cir. 1995)
green
Kelly Services, Inc. v. Creative Harbor, LLC (2015)
November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 18 (D.C.Cir. 2008); see also Dunn Computer Corp., v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 832 (E.D.Va.2001) (dismissing Lanham Act claim because plaintiffs intent-to-use application conferred “no statutory trademark rights to preclude others from using [the] mark” until the plaintiff registered the mark); Fila Sport, supra (dismissing trademark infringement and unfair competition claims where plaintiff had only filed an intent-to-…
green
Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. Walsh (2010)
See Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 831 (E.D.Va.2001) (“[a]uthority is uniform in allowing trademark misuse only as an affirmative defense to a trademark infringement action”); see also Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Gagnon, 353 F.Supp.2d 1208, 1212 (M.D.Fla.2005) (“courts uniformly allow trademark misuse only as an affirmative defense to a trademark infringement action”); Ford Motor Co. v. Obsolete Ford Parts, Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 516, 521 (E…
See, e.g., Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 832 (E.D.Va.2001) (finding the filing of an intent-use application “confers no right on defendants] to exclude others from using a mark merely because an intent-to-use application has been filed.
green
Ford Motor Co. v. Obsolete Ford Parts, Inc. (2004)
Aug. 19, 1998) (“if the defense of ‘trademark misuse’ even exists, it is probably limited to misrepresentations ... ”)); see also Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823 , 831 n. 23 (E.D.Va.2001) (“authority is uniform in allowing trademark misuse only as an affirmative defense to a trademark infringement action”).
green
Beazer Homes Corp. v. VMIF/Anden Southbridge Venture (2002)
See Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 829-30 (E.D.Va.2001).
green
Famology. Com Inc. v. Perot Systems Corp. (2001)
See Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 823, 830 (E.D.Va.